Marriage as Sacrament versus State Defined

[Stephen168]

In response to Plato’s deeply creepy version of a ‘free love’ society, he certainly extolled the virtues of the nuclear family. No dissent there from me.

But saying that it is good for a heterosexual couple to marry and have kids is not the same as saying that a homosexual couple cannot marry.

He did not say it was good. He said that is what they do. Marriage is creating, nourishing, and educating children.

So back to my original question - do you actually have a citation where Aristotle opposed gay marriage? Genuine question, and I may well change my view if you have a quote I’ve not seen (or not thought enough about) before.

Same sex unions can not create children. The thing they have to do before the can nourish or educate them.

Nope, I think you are wrong. Sure you are not confusing me with someone else?

It was you.

Not all of them. Certainly the same sex ones, which do form naturally, tend not to produce them (alone) but can and do raise them.

Marriage is the product of human nature not the State or religion. It is the natural coming together of humans to create children. It is the design of man to create children. It is by this design we know the purpose of marriage as described by Aristotle.

However the view that two men or two women cannot

marry is fairly explicitly a product of religion, and indeed the judeo-christian religions in particular.
Stephen168;11581505:

It is a human state, not one invented by the State or any religion.

A few that do:
Quakers

Liberal Jews
Unitarians

They are Judeo-Christian religions

Yet it happens in nature. A lot. Especially in our closest relatives.

It is contrary to nature by design. Humans are rational animals capable of acting contrary to their nature.

All I have said is that raising children is not the only purpose of marriage.

You have to create them before you can raise them.

 

[DrTaffy]

Nevertheless, the consequences in Canada on their public school system was more than this.

But it was not legalisation of gay marriage that gave the State the right to impose teaching matter on schools. Canada could require its schools to teach that same sex parents are just as valid as opposite sex ones whether or not same sex marriage was recognised. That is seperate legislation, just as anti-discrimination legislation is seperate from legal recognition of same sex marriage.

The only thing that legalising same sex marriage would directly effect is whether or not schools should teach that same sex marriages are legally recognised. So unless you are lobbying for a right for schools to lie to pupils, this issue is irrelevant to gay marriage.

You try to equate opposition to gay marriage with opposition to pork. They are different because unlike pork, gay marriage has secular reasons for its opposition.

There are plenty of secular arguments against eating pork in particular, or meat in general. Now I could try to show you how those arguments are at least as valid as your own arguments against SS marriage, as an illustration of why I think you are unjustified in trying to impose that view on others (as I assume you would accept that a Jew trying to forcibly prevent others from eating pork is unjust) but that was not the point.

The point in that argument was that the Jew was trying to force others to follow his beliefs solely so that he would not have to face any compromise between his beliefs and theirs. That is the argument I claim is ludicrous, and which you seem to have made.

To go back to the general case I posed earlier, and which you did not answer:

In other words, where is the reasonable accomodation in a society where some groups hold a particular belief and others do not?

Say group A hold belief A, group B hold belief B.

I would say that a reasonable compromise would be that group A can live their lives according to belief A, group B can live theirs according to belief B, and more detailed compromise is only required where those two groups’ rights come into conflict.

But the Jew, and you, seem to be arguing that group B chould be forced to live according to belief A, that they do not share, solely so that group A should never be forced to accept any compromise.

DrTaffy;11586174:

So you think the majority (or at least those who win a democratic contest) always

has the right to force a view (any view) on a minority? That it should not consider whether or not that view should be imposed on others or kept personal?

If that majority feels strongly that it is right, then yes.

Then what are you complaining about when the majority forces its will on you?

When I ask you why you are justified in forcing your beliefs on me, you shush me with the argument that you are just expressing your view. But then you demand that I explain why I am justified in forcing my view on you.

Of course you have the right to continue challenging my or anyone else’s views, regardless of the outcome of an election.

So why the respond to that challenge with the claim that you are just expressing your view, but refusing to debate it? Are you just stonewalling to avoid answering the question, or expressing some actual philosophical opinion (which would then seem to be applied inconsistently)?

I avoid answering that question because it is irrelevant to the discussion of “should gay marriage be legal”. We should be discussing ideas, not personalities.

It is central to the issue of whether or not you have the right to force that view on others. It is nothing to do with an attack on your personality!

In other words, if you feel that liberals should not force schoolteachers to teach the liberal view that gay marriage is OK, because it is wrong to force that view on others who do not share it, then you should subject your own views to similar scrutiny before trying to force them on us.

Yet you are quite happy for Catholic schools to force teachers to follow Catholic beliefs even outside of school.

DrTaffy;11586174:

Seriously? Your idea of a reasonable compromise

with gay rights is for you to not imprison or behead homosexuals?:bigyikes:
Not doing those things is certainly more reasonable than doing them.

Expecting brownie points for not doing them is not at all reasonable, however. It certainly does not count as a reasonable compromise!

 

[DrTaffy]

This is nothing more than a restatement of the definition of marriage, for in “eliminating all examples of marriage that are not heterosexual”, we have not actually eliminated any marriages.

So, while accusing me of making a circular argument, you are making an explicit circular argument by insisting from the beginning that marriage be defined as solely heterosexual! :tsktsk:

I on the other hand did not make a circular argument, in that I did not just assert that ‘marriage’ included same sex couples, but gave extensive historical examples of cultures in which marriage did include same sex couples!

Again, can you provide objective proof that the Native American marriages of two-spirited individual either:

1. 
   *]never occurred
   *]were not marriages
   *]were between a physical man and a physical woman

 

[DrTaffy]

He did not say it was good.

So that is a “no” on being able to provide any evidence for your assertion?

Shame. To this extent at least I am a natural scientist - I would rather be proven wrong and learn something new than find out that the opposing view has no substance behind it.

Same sex unions can not create children. The thing they have to do before the can nourish or educate them.

Wrong - plenty of couples, gay and straight, nourish and educate children they did not create. Even in nature. Sometimes proving better at it than heterosexual couples!

It was you.

And yet you still can neither provide a link nor give a precis of the argument that you think disproves the historical evidence I just gave?

They are Judeo-Christian religions

Sure, deliberately. I thought relatively mainstream Judeo-Christian religions would have more impact with you (and, to be honest, I had the relevant links handy). So what? I never claimed that all Judeo-Christian religions were against SS marriage, if that is what you are getting at.

You, on the other hand, did claim that:

No religion would recognize a same sex couple as married.

Do you now accept that that is a false assertion?

DrTaffy;11586284:

Yet it happens in nature. A lot. Especially in our closest relatives.

It is contrary to nature by design.

It is clearly not contrary to nature.

If you are asserting that it would have to be contrary to a nature designed by God, all you would have proven would be that nature was not designed by God. At least not in the way you had assumed to reach the conclusion that homosexuality was contrary to ‘nature by design’ whatever that might be.

 

[Stephen168]

So that is a “no” on being able to provide any evidence for your assertion?

Shame. To this extent at least I am a natural scientist - I would rather be proven wrong and learn something new than find out that the opposing view has no substance behind it.

Wrong - plenty of couples, gay and straight, nourish and educate children they did not create. Even in nature. Sometimes proving better at it than heterosexual couples!

Aristotle did not specifically rule out bestiality, homosexual, or pedophile unions as marriage. Aristotle’s rule of noncontradiction; “It is impossible that the same thing to belong and not belong to the same thing at the same time and in the same respect.” This requires clear definitions. His definition of marriage was the creation, nourishment, and education of children. Therefore an arrangement that is not designed to create, nourish and educate children is not a marriage; it is not-marriage.

Sure, deliberately. I thought relatively mainstream Judeo-Christian religions would have more impact with you (and, to be honest, I had the relevant links handy). So what? I never claimed that all Judeo-Christian religions were against SS marriage, if that is what you are getting at.

You, on the other hand, did claim that:
Stephen168;11581505:

No religion would recognize a same sex couple as married.

Marriage is the creation, and raising of children. It is a human state, not one invented by the State or any religion.

Do you now accept that that is a false assertion?

Your historical claim that the reason we do not recognize same sex unions are marriage “is explicitly a product of religion and indeed Judeo-Christian religions in particular.” So with your historical claim I said, “No religion would recognize a same sex couple as married.” Then in summary said,”Marriage is the creation, and raising of children. It is a human state, not one invented by the State or any religion.” So no in the historical context that it was given, I do not think it is a false assertion. As Justice Alito said, “this institution [same sex marriage] is newer than cellphones or the internet.” So why would we be surprised if a group accepts this recent invention. And if you don’t think it was a historical exchange than your two statements would contradict each other, which is irrational.
In reference to the bolded part of your post, yes you did. Not only all Judeo-Christian religions but all religions.

Yet it happens in nature. A lot. Especially in our closest relatives.
Stephen168;11586950:

It is contrary to nature by design. Humans are rational animals capable of acting contrary to their nature.

It is clearly not contrary to nature

.

If you are asserting that it would have to be contrary to a nature designed by God, all you would have proven would be that nature was not designed by God. At least not in the way you had assumed to reach the conclusion that homosexuality was contrary to ‘nature by design’ whatever that might be.

I never said anything about God. We are made a certain way with body parts designed for certain purposes. Homosexuality deviates from design which is why the union is sterile by design, and can not create children by design. And is therefore not marriage but design.

 

[Catolico65]

Shame. To this extent at least I am a natural scientist - I would rather be proven wrong and learn something new than find out that the opposing view has no substance behind it.

Wrong - plenty of couples, gay and straight, nourish and educate children they did not create. Even in nature. Sometimes proving better at it than heterosexual couples!

With all due respect a “scientist” should not confuse established and vetted theories with merely suggestive studies or even worse, anecdotal data.

What is clear from a very large study in Canada is that children from same sex households are much more likely not to graduate from high school, even more so that children from single parents. Given the importance of finishing high school in society is such that it is not even questioned among young students this can only mean that children in same sex relationships are in such a stressful and dysfunctional situation that they are not able to finish school.

This only makes complete sense given that a homosexual relationship is inherently dysfunctional because there is little real love, only a mutual decision to satisfy abnormal desires.

lifesitenews.com/news/children-from-same-sex-households-much-less-likely-to-graduate-high-school

Finally, regarding homosexual being natural because it is witnessed in nature, animals also eat their own offspring, kill their relatives, eat feces, have sex with their offspring, have public orgies, etc. Furthermore, animals have no soul nor any concept of right or wrong, yet we are different. For this reason God sent His only begotten Son in the flesh to show us the way. Paz.

 

[DrTaffy]

Aristotle did not specifically rule out bestiality, homosexual, or pedophile unions as marriage.

That’s what I thought.

claim that:

No religion would recognize a same sex couple as married.

Do you now accept that that is a false assertion?

Your historical claim that the reason we do not recognize same sex unions are marriage “is explicitly a product of religion and indeed Judeo-Christian religions in particular.”

What does this have to do with your claim?

1. 
   *]You claimed that “No religion would recognize a same sex couple as married”
   *]I gave three concrete examples of religions that do
   *]Do you accept your initial claim as false? In other words, are you even remotely open to rational debate, or am I wasting my time talking to you?
   

   So with your historical claim I said, “No religion would recognize a same sex couple as married.” Then in summary said,”Marriage is the creation, and raising of children. It is a human state, not one invented by the State or any religion.” So no in the historical context that it was given, I do not think it is a false assertion.

   You have only shown that you do not accept same sex couples as married. You have done nothing to address the examples of religions that do.
   

   In reference to the bolded part of your post, yes you did. Not only all Judeo-Christian religions but all religions.

   No, I did not.
   
   You are familiar with Hitchen’s Rasor?
   

   What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

   I never said anything about God. We are made a certain way with body parts designed for certain purposes. Homosexuality deviates from design which is why the union is sterile by design, and can not create children by design. And is therefore not marriage but design.

   Fine, then all you have shown is that you do not understand nature’s design. Still nothing there to counter the fact that homosexuality clearly is natural.

 

[DrTaffy]

DrTaffy;11589251:

Wrong - plenty of couples, gay and straight, nourish and educate children they did not create. Even in nature. Sometimes proving better at it than heterosexual couples!

With all due respect a “scientist” should not confuse established and vetted theories with merely suggestive studies or even worse, anecdotal data.

Wut? I did not cite any ‘merely suggestive studies or even worse, anecdotal data’, whereas you go on to do exactly that! Without getting into the many criticisms of the Allen paper, it doesn’t even support the assertion you seem to be trying to draw from it! For example it says that “sons of gay parents are 61 % more likely to graduate” and that the ‘established and vetted theories’ flatly contradict your conclusion:

Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology.

Trying to make a wild guess as to what you might be getting at: would it help if I emphasise the phrase “Even in nature”, which is what the phrase “Sometimes proving better at it than heterosexual couples!” referred to?

i.e. Many same-sex pairings in nature prove more successful at raising children than heterosexual ones. For a handy internet-friendly example, see Black Swans.

This only makes complete sense given that a homosexual relationship is inherently dysfunctional because there is little real love, only a mutual decision to satisfy abnormal desires.

A repellent and utterly unsupported assertion. :dts:

Finally, regarding homosexual being natural because it is witnessed in nature, animals also eat their own offspring, kill their relatives, eat feces, have sex with their offspring, have public orgies, etc.

So trying to base moral arguments on whether or not something is ‘natural’ is dumb. Agreed.

Good luck getting your co-religionists to stop doing so!

 

[Stephen168]

While I pretty much agree with what you say here, I don’t think that the recognition of marriage as between man and woman was a product of religion. It was recognized simply as a result of how men and women are built. They are made to be sexually complementary. Whatever religion one might profess, that basic biological fact has been pretty much recognized as a matter of nature—at least until the most recent societal loss of reason.

However the view that two men or two women cannot marry is fairly explicitly a product of religion, and indeed the judeo-christian religions in particular.

Aristotle was not a Judeo-Christian yet he believed that marriage was the creation, nourishment, and education of children. So Judeo-Christian religions are not the cause of the view that marriage can only be between men and women.

Mind you he also never said that two men or two women could not marry.

This is at least the second attempt you’ve made to argue from silence on this forum. I know of a religion that has made up a whole history about itself by arguing from silence, now it seems to be used by people who claim that same sex unions can be marriage.

That’s what I thought.

Arguing from silence is a logical fallacy, so your point is irrational.

What does this have to do with your claim?

1. 
   *]You claimed that “No religion would recognize a same sex couple as married”
   *]I gave three concrete examples of religions that do
   *]Do you accept your initial claim as false? In other words, are you even remotely open to rational debate, or am I wasting my time talking to you?

1. 
   Yes, before 1970 no religion would recognize same sex unions as marriage. Judeo-Christian religions are not the cause of the view that marriage can only be between men and women.
   

   You have only shown that you do not accept same sex couples as married. You have done nothing to address the examples of religions that do.

   No, I have shown that it is an ancient reasoned understanding of what marriage is; which is older than Christ.
   

   No, I did not.

   Yes, you did.
   

   You are familiar with Hitchen’s Rasor?
   

   What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

   Does that mean you are ready to prove that Aristotle included same sex unions in his understanding of marriage?
   

   Fine, then all you have shown is that you do not understand nature’s design. Still nothing there to counter the fact that homosexuality clearly is natural.

   I have shown just the opposite. Reproductive organs are designed for reproduction. To us them for another purpose is to deviate from our design. Homosexual acts are deviant acts by design. While heterosexuals can engage in deviate acts, they are able to engage in acts consistent with design; same sex unions never can. Which means they can never have child because their acts are never reproductive. They are not married.
   
   Marriage is a human arrangement based on how we are designed. It is not based on religion.

 

[Catolico65]

Wut? I did not cite any ‘merely suggestive studies or even worse, anecdotal data’, whereas you go on to do exactly that! Without getting into the many criticisms of the Allen paper, it doesn’t even support the assertion you seem to be trying to draw from it! For example it says that “sons of gay parents are 61 % more likely to graduate” and that the ‘established and vetted theories’ flatly contradict your conclusion:

With all due respect your lack of experience in this area is evident. I base this on my experience as a graduate engineer who did research and studied statistical analysis at the graduate level and as such am not impressed by persons who promote anecdotal evidence as scientific.

As far as your comment that I am misinterpreting the report here is a quote so that there is no doubt:

*A new large-scale study by a Canadian researcher has found that children in same-sex households were only 65 percent as likely to graduate from high school as those living in traditional opposite sex marriage families. *

Given that this report has a population sample of 20% of the 2006 Canadian census this information is definitive to say the least.

Trying to make a wild guess as to what you might be getting at: would it help if I emphasise the phrase “Even in nature”, which is what the phrase “Sometimes proving better at it than heterosexual couples!” referred to?

I can only assume you are referring to my statement which is very clear and logical, there is little to discuss:
*
What is clear from a very large study in Canada is that children from same sex households are much more likely not to graduate from high school, even more so that children from single parents. Given the importance of finishing high school in society is such that it is not even questioned among young students this can only mean that children in same sex relationships are in such a stressful and dysfunctional situation that they are not able to finish school.*

Trying to make a wild guess as to what you might be getting at: would it help if I emphasise the phrase “Even in nature”, which is what the phrase “Sometimes proving better at it than heterosexual couples!” referred to?

i.e. Many same-sex pairings in nature prove more successful at raising children than heterosexual ones. For a handy internet-friendly example, see Black Swans.

So trying to base moral arguments on whether or not something is ‘natural’ is dumb. Agreed.

Good luck getting your co-religionists to stop doing so!

You are very confused and not logical in the least bit given that you make a case for homosexuality as natural in the animal kingdom and then follow that by saying it is “dumb”.

At any rate we are not the same as animals as we reason and know right from wrong.

A repellent and utterly unsupported assertion. :dts:

Another illogical response given what science and the Bible say, it is apparent you are desperate to try to convince even yourself that homosexuality is not wrong. Unfortunately, as you well know that will never happen.

 

[DrTaffy]

DrTaffy;11580859:

However the view that two men or two women cannot

marry is fairly explicitly a product of religion, and indeed the judeo-christian religions in particular.

Aristotle was not a Judeo-Christian yet he believed that marriage was the creation, nourishment, and education of children.

And you have admitted that he never said that two men or two women cannot marry.

DrTaffy;11582225:

Mind you he also never said that two men or two women could not marry.

This is at least the second attempt you’ve made to argue from silence on this forum.

That is not the argument from silence. You have admitted that he never said that!

DrTaffy;11591032:

What does this have to do with your claim?

1. 
   *]You claimed that “No religion would recognize a same sex couple as married”
   *]I gave three concrete examples of religions that do
   *]Do you accept your initial claim as false? In other words, are you even remotely open to rational debate, or am I wasting my time talking to you?

1. 
   Yes, before 1970 no religion would recognize same sex unions as marriage. Judeo-Christian religions are not the cause of the view that marriage can only be between men and women.

1. 
   A) What does the ‘yes’ refer to? Taken literally, it would refer to the question “Do you accept your initial claim as false?”, but you don’t seem to accept that as true.
   B) Referring to the bit highlighted in red - I see you are adjusting your claim. However you still have not addressed the citations I gave earlier for Native Americans accepting same sex looong before 1970!
   

   DrTaffy;11591032:
   

   Stephen168;11589513:
   

   DrTaffy;11589251:
   

   So what? I never claimed that all

   Judeo-Christian religions were against SS marriage, if that is what you are getting at.
   
   In reference to the bolded part of your post, yes you did. Not only all Judeo-Christian religions but all religions.
   
   No, I did not.
   
   Yes, you did.

   Oh no I didn’t!
   
   (You do know that Panto season is over, don’t you?)
   
   Feel free to prove me wrong - a simple link to where I claimed any such thing will do!
   

   I have shown just the opposite. Reproductive organs are designed for reproduction. To us them for another purpose is to deviate from our design.

   Well, gosh, all Catholic men should immediately stop using their wee-wee for weeing then!
   
   Again, all you have demonstrated is that you do not understand nature.

 

[DrTaffy]

DrTaffy;11591047:

Wut? I did not

cite any ‘merely suggestive studies or even worse, anecdotal data’, whereas you go on to do exactly that!

With all due respect your lack of experience in this area is evident.

… you appear to have very low standards for ‘all due respect’! Could you address what I have said, rather than attacking me personally?

Moreover, you make absolutely no attempt to even address the point that I did not cite any ‘merely suggestive studies or even worse, anecdotal data’, as you accuse me of doing, whereas you go on to do exactly that!

I base this on my experience as a graduate engineer who did research and studied statistical analysis at the graduate level and as such am not impressed by persons who promote anecdotal evidence as scientific.

A) Having a PhD in Physical Chemistry and a number of published peer-reviewed articles and patents, you can imagine how jolly impressed I am by ‘a graduate engineer who did research and studied statistical analysis’! Argument from authority is a fallacy anyway, but the maxim about not getting into an arse-kicking contest with a porcupine applies here!
B) What anecdotal evidence am I supposed to have presented?

As far as your comment that I am misinterpreting the report here is a quote so that there is no doubt:

That is a quote from an article about the study, not the study itself. Would I be correct in thinking that you have not read the study yourself? That would explain a lot.

I refer you again to the quotes from the study itself that I gave above and which flatly contradict the interpretation you are trying to give it!

You are very confused and not logical in the least bit given that you make a case for homosexuality as natural in the animal kingdom and then follow that by saying it is “dumb”.

More ad hominem!

And you are confusing me saying that homosexuality occurs in nature, and so is natural (contrary to Stephen’s claims) and me saying that it is dumb to try to base moral arguments on whether or not something is ‘natural’!

DrTaffy;11591047:

Catolico65;11590522:

This only makes complete sense given that a homosexual relationship is inherently dysfunctional because there is little real love, only a mutual decision to satisfy abnormal desires

A repellent and utterly unsupported assertion. :dts:

Another illogical response given what science and the Bible say, it is apparent you are desperate to try to convince even yourself that homosexuality is not wrong. Unfortunately, as you well know that will never happen.

Nope, a simple statement of opinion (that the assertion is repellent) and of fact (that it is unsupported)

I don’t need to convince myself that homosexuality is not morally wrong, I am already sure of that. Luckily I also don’t need to convince you that homosexuality is not wrong, which may well never happen but is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

I am only here to understand your reasoning, which in your case seems tragically close to the caricature of Catholicism that other Catholics so detest. :sad_yes:

 

[Stephen168]

A lack of evidence is not evidence. Aristotle understood marriage to be the creation, nourishment and education of children. Your lack of evidence to the contrary is not evidence; Argument from silence.

Therefore, your claim:

However the view that two men or two women cannot marry is fairly explicitly a product of religion, and indeed the judeo-christian religions in particular.

Is false.

I see you are adjusting your claim. However you still have not addressed the citations I gave earlier for Native Americans accepting same sex looong before 1970!

No, I’m not adjusting my claim. My claim was alway in response to your claim that religion and Judeo-Christian religions in particular are the cause of marriage being understood as between men and women. It is not.

Well, gosh, all Catholic men should immediately stop using their wee-wee for weeing then!

No, that is part of its designed function not its primary function because women preform that function without one. So my claim holds.

Reproductive organs are designed for reproduction. To use them for another purpose is to deviate from our design. Homosexual acts are deviant acts by design. While heterosexuals can engage in deviate acts, they are able to engage in acts consistent with design; same sex unions never can. Which means they can never have child because their acts are never reproductive. They are not married.

Marriage is a human arrangement based on how we are designed. It is not based on religion.

I am only here to understand your reasoning,…

really? I haven’t noticed any attempt at understanding on your part.